CONSIDERED OPINION: BILL D’ARCY IS INNOCENT.
Those of us who have studied the criminal convictions of Bill D’Arcy at a fairly deep level are convinced he is innocent. Those who have gone into it into it at a less demanding level soon conclude that he is certainly not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Despite media reports and official correspondence only one woman ever accused Bill D’Arcy of rape. This accusation has been medically certified as physically impossible. In addition, evidence from the complainant demonstrates that D’Arcy was not even at the school at the time of the alleged offence. This rape conviction accounted for 10 years of his original 14 year sentence.
D’Arcy was first of all publicised in the media as guilty especially by the Courier Mail, the one newspaper of Queensland. Former executive Chris Mitchell admits this in his book “Making Headlines” (p.220). For identifying Bill D’Arcy before his trial, the Courier Mail was upbraided in strong terms by her sister publication, the Murdoch owned Australian in an editorial of 1 September 1998.
Augmenting this unbalanced coverage was a two year positive effort by a police task force whose mission was to dig dirt on Bill D’Arcy (Who authorised this bizarrely uncustomary use of police resources and why?) In this police “trawling” operation, the people police targeted were mostly of low socio-economic status. The police persuaded whoever they could to “remember” unsavoury actions by D’Arcy.
Thirdly, the fervour of the child protection enthusiasts to find a guilty high-flyer which who would be great publicity for their laudable cause must be added to the mix. Given these three factors D’Arcy didn’t stand a chance.
Eventually Bill D’Arcy was charged and brought into a court room (November 2000). In any other jurisdiction the accusations would have been immediately dismissed. As it turns out the judge, the newly-appointed Bob Douglas, until a few weeks previously enjoyed dubious political connections, decided to proceed. The evidence in this main trial is chockers with contradictory evidence and anomalies. But with the scandalously effective trial by the media, the Queensland population, including judge, jury, and related personnel, convinced prior to the trial, decided D’Arcy was guilty.
The appeal to the Supreme Court only decided to deal with the sentencing. (Why did they do that? ) In any case, they reduced D’Arcy’s sentence by four years, amidst fierce criticism from the media and the general populace.
Immediately, the one rape victim and one other applied for compensation in the civil court. Judge H.W.T. Botting ruled that the charges could not be proved and gave them no compensation. He also awarded costs to D’Arcy. Two questions: who financed the two applicants to issue proceedings? Why was D’Arcy never paid his costs as awarded?
I agree with the former senior police officer/investigator who described the other trials as “carpet bombing”. In a one page summary, it is next to impossible to comment on them. Suffice to say, that in these trials proven perjury has been documented, charges were dismissed because the complainants couldn’t remember what they said in police-assisted statements, powerful evidence by a supportive colleague of D’Arcy was ignored, and police abetted an important accuser to seriously change their original statement in the light of serious perjury.
The Bill D’Arcy case demands a thorough independent investigation wherein witnesses may speak freely without being sued. Some more information on the supporters website http://www.apersonalhistory.com/Bill_D%27Arcy/. Other statements by former senior police officers Warren Smithers, Peter Slatter, Jim Coughlin and Bob Munt will agree with the above.
Dally Messenger Monday, 20 June 2022